Is the time right for a repeal of the 2nd amendment?

  • Thread starter Thread starter upant
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Not sure of this. There were occasions when even the Soviet troops wouldn’t do it and they had to call in special MVD or NKVD troops to fire on civilians.

I’m currently reading a book about German police units in WWII. There were some German units that wouldn’t shoot Jews even when ordered to do it, particularly if the Jews were German Jews. And it wasn’t as if Jews were enormously popular among Germans generally. In those cases, they either had to bring in special squads (Usually HIWIs or SS) or select killer squads from regular army or police units individually.
 
Last edited:
No, actually not. As a general rule (at least so far in the book) the only consequences were possibly a lack of upward mobility in the police or armed forces after the war (as perceived during the war) for those who intended to make them a career. As it turned out, of course, it wasn’t. By and large, those who refused to kill Jews (or Poles) were castigated at worst, called “weak” and so on. Some were simply allowed to not participate by officers and noncoms who didn’t want to be involved in it themselves. Some officers and noncoms also refused, either by evasion or outright refusal. Eventually, the killing was almost entirely turned over to ‘specialists’ at the big killing centers like Treblinka or Birkenau, and part of the reason was the difficulty in getting “ordinary” people to kill civilians.
 
I’m not so sure of this. I know several military officers (my father was one, one of my best friends is a colonel), and all of them have stated they would never give an order to fire on civilians unless they are fired upon first.
Say gun confiscation were enacted, and the President ordered the military to round up the guns. Every officer I know–and I’ve asked them this question–would refuse that order hands down.

I had a conversation with my colonel buddy about this specifically. The conversation went something like this:

“If Congress banned guns, and armed resistance to the law occurred, would you order troops to fire upon the resistance?” he replied “Not unless we were fired upon first, and only insofar as to protect ourselves.”

When further pressed that “What if the President ordered you to fire upon the resistance?” he replied “I would refuse it as an illegal order.”

And finally when asked “Are there officers who would carry out such an order?” he replied “Among regulars, not a one at O4 or above. Among the reservists, perhaps O6 or above would refuse such an order. We take our oaths seriously.”

He admitted the likelihood of such activity would only occur at the lowest levels where there is the least amount of authority, least amount of experience, and the least amount of perspective. He said no officer with even an ounce of dignity would ever order civilians fired upon, no matter who gave the order. If such a thing occurred, he’s certain there’d be a massive exodus from the military and they’d all join the resistance (if such a thing existed).

If an engagement exists, sure. But only so far as to defend themselves. I didn’t think of the case at the time during our discussion, but I think the military would refuse to execute offensives. They’d fight only defensively.
 
Suudy said:
I’m not so sure of this. I know several military officers (my father was one, one of my best friends is a colonel), and all of them have stated they would never give an order to fire on civilians unless they are fired upon first.
Click to expand...
How many Pakistani and Afghan wedding receptions have been vaporized by American airstrikes?
 
lmachine said:
How many Pakistani and Afghan wedding receptions have been vaporized by American airstrikes?
Click to expand...
How man Pakistani and Afghan wedding receptions were intentionally targeted because they were civilian targets? There may have been civilians there, but were the civilians the target?

He doesn’t deny that collateral damage would occur to civilians. What he says he would refuse to do is take an offensive stance against US citizens exercising their Constitutional rights.

But thanks for the random excursion into unrelated areas. It was fun. Perhaps we’ll do it again soon?
 
Sure. That would be the MVD types. But those have to be specially recruited and specially trained and are never very large.
 
Ridgerunner said:
Sure. That would be the MVD types. But those have to be specially recruited and specially trained and are never very large.
Click to expand...
Exactly. And even among the regulars, from E1 through O9, finding such types would be exceedingly difficult. Despite what many think, the vast majority don’t join the military to satisfy some bloodlust.
 
lmachine said:
And part of balancing competing rights is recognizing when the exercise of one particular right infringes disproportionately on the other rights of other people and adjusting our approach to those rights
Click to expand...
When an individual violates the rights of others, he or she should be held to account. You do not hold innocent people accountable by taking their rights. It is not about “balancing rights”, because the shooter did not exercise a right. He exercised an abuse of the rights of others. He took license.
My owning an AR-15 does not impact anyone else’s rights.
lmachine said:
The Constitution is amendable, and I have a strong hope that the young people of this country who spend significant classroom time practicing what to do in a school shooting will refuse to continue licking the boots of the gun industry.
Click to expand...
I have a strong hope that young people will come to realize that taking a right that some people value but you don’t inevitably leads to a right you value being attacked.
I hope they will see the brutality that has taken place when citizens are disarmed, and freedom is turned into government power, is not the way this country should go. That way, they won’t have to lick progressive jackboots.
 
Last edited:
Ridgerunner said:
We are to repeal the second amendment because some schools don’t want to bother protecting their students?
Click to expand...
That would be a nonsensical reason. I would think the case would revolve around a view that legislation (which can evolve consistent with circumstances, technology, and the will of the people, etc) can better set the rights and obligations appropriate to this issue than a Constitutional statement.
 
Rau said:
That would be a nonsensical reason. I would think the case would revolve around a view that legislation (which can evolve consistent with circumstances, technology, and the will of the people, etc) can better set the rights and obligations appropriate to this issue than a Constitutional statement.
Click to expand...
But that is not how the republic is designed, thank goodness. Rights are not subject to “ the will of the people “. An amendment is possible, but intentionally difficult. That constitutional statement, whether it be the 2nd, the 1st, or the 4th, is intended to withstand passing fads or movements.
The will of the people does not establish of determine rights.
 
The Republuc works just like that. Examine the wealth of matters managed through legislation and the few managed via Constitutional statement. The writers of the constitution chose to place guns in an exalted position, and the people of the day thought that was a good idea. We (meaning Americans today) are free enough to decide that was a mistake, and to invoke due process to fix it.
 
Last edited:
Rau said:
Of course it is. Examine the wealth of matters managed through legislation and the few managed via Constitutional statement.
Click to expand...
Which constitutionally protected right has been legislated away?
Rau said:
The writers of the constitution chose to place guns in an exalted position, and the people of the day thought that was a good idea. We (meaning Americans today) are free enough to decide that was a mistake, and to invoke due process to fix it.
Click to expand...
No. They chose to place individual rights in an exalted place over government and government power. Among those rights, they recognized the right to defend one’s liberty and other rights. That’s what the 2nd does. It protects the right to the tools of a free people to defend a free state.
The only due process available is a constitutional amendment. No other process exists short of tyranny, which is what the right exists to resist in the first place.
It remains a dangerous philosophy that mob rule should have the power to compromise rights, because once it starts, no right is safe. We see the current tide of attacks on other rights.
 
Last edited:
This is a dramatic understatement. Virtually all, with a very few exceptions, exercise their inherent right with care and concern.

People place their children in our care (I’m a teacher) everyday! We are denied the tools needed to defend our children and ourselves.
Well trained, properly equipped teachers would be an excellent last line of defense.
 
JonNC said:
Which constitutionally protected right has been legislated away?
Click to expand...
I didn’t suggest that. Changes must happen via due process. And then legislation can be developed to address the subject matter appropriately.
JonNC said:
The only due process available is a constitutional amendment.
Click to expand...
Exactly. A free people can pursue this.
JonNC said:
It remains a dangerous philosophy that mob rule should have the power to compromise rights, because once it starts, no right is safe. We see the current tide of attacks on other rights.
Click to expand...
All very interesting, but nothing to do with reviewing the terms in the Constitution by due process.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top